Recognition of prior learning:

Key success factors and the building blocks of an effective system

Ashwani Aggarwal

Decent Work Technical Support Team for

Eastern and Southern Africa

Pretoria, South Africa

Skills and Employability Branch

Employment Policy Department

Geneva, Switzerland

RPL Better jobs

Out of

informality Migration/ mobility

Life-long

learning

Self esteem Skills

recognition

ii

Copyright © International Labour Organization 2015

First published 2015

Publications of the International Labour Office enjoy copyright under Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright

Convention. Nevertheless, short excerpts from them may be reproduced without authorization, on condition that the

source is indicated. For rights of reproduction or translation, application should be made to ILO Publications (Rights

and Permissions), International Labour Office, CH-1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland, or by email: pubdroit@ilo.org. The

International Labour Office welcomes such applications.

Libraries, institutions and other users registered with reproduction rights organizations may make copies in accordance

with the licences issued to them for this purpose. Visit www.ifrro.org to find the reproduction rights organization in

your country.

ILO Cataloguing in Publication Data

Aggarwal, Ashwani

Recognition of prior learning: Key success factors and the building blocks of an effective system

Ashwani Aggarwal; International Labour Organization, ILO DWT for Eastern and Southern Africa and ILO Country

Office for South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and Swaziland. - Pretoria: ILO, 2015

ISBN: 9789221296164 (print); 9789221296171 (web pdf)

ILO DWT for Eastern and Southern Africa and ILO Country Office for South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and

Swaziland

skill certification / skills development / occupational qualification / promotion of employment / on the job training /

technical education / vocational training / role of ILO

06.05.2

The designations employed in ILO publications, which are in conformity with United Nations practice, and the

presentation of material therein do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the International

Labour Office concerning the legal status of any country, area or territory or of its authorities, or concerning the

delimitation of its frontiers.

The responsibility for opinions expressed in signed articles, studies and other contributions rests solely with their

authors, and publication does not constitute an endorsement by the International Labour Office of the opinions

expressed in them.

Reference to names of firms and commercial products and processes does not imply their endorsement by the

International Labour Office, and any failure to mention a particular firm, commercial product or process is not a sign of

disapproval.

ILO publications and electronic products can be obtained through major booksellers or ILO local offices in many

countries, or direct from ILO Publications, International Labour Office, CH-1211, Geneva 22, Switzerland. Catalogues

or lists of new publications are available free of charge from the above address, or by email: pubvente@ilo.org.

Visit our website: www.ilo.org/publns.

Printed in South Africa

iii

Foreword

Due to a lack of appropriate qualifications, a large proportion of people face severe

disadvantage in getting decent jobs, migrating to other regions and accessing further

education, even though they might have the necessary knowledge and skills. The RPL

process can help such persons acquire a formal qualification that matches their knowledge

and skills, and thus contribute to improving employability, mobility, lifelong learning, social

inclusion and self-esteem. International Labour Standards and International Labour

Conferences (ILC) have emphasized the importance of RPL and recommended establishing

the systems for RPL:

The ILO Recommendation on Human Resources Development: Education, Training and Lifelong Learning (No. 195) calls on Member States to establish a framework for the recognition and certification of skills, including prior learning and previous experience, irrespective of the countries where these were acquired and whether formally or informally.

The Committee for the Recurrent Discussion on Employment of ILC 2014 recommends that employment policies include sub-policies for systems of skills recognition.

The ILO multilateral framework on labour migration (ILO, 2006) and the Director General report to the ILC 2014 on Fair Migration (ILO, 2014b) stress the importance of skills recognition.

The ILC 2014 report ‘Transitioning from the informal to the formal economy’ states that ‘it is necessary to develop institutions and mechanisms that assess the skills and competencies acquired by workers so that they can be validated and recognized through certification.’

In view of the importance of RPL, most countries have initiated steps in establishing an RPL

system, but many are facing challenges to successful implementation. Therefore, policy

makers from many countries are seeking support of the ILO in developing and

implementing an effective RPL systems. The Decent Work Programme of Southern African

Development Community (SADC), a regional body of 15 countries, has recommended

development of regional RPL guidelines, and likewise requested the support of the ILO. It is

against this background that this paper has been produced, taking into account experiences

of many countries around the world, with the aim of building the capacity of policy makers

and social partners to establish an effective RPL system. This paper would be a part of the

ILO strategy to stimulate debate and enable policy makers in developing effective, equitable

policies and a system for RPL that is suitable to their national context.

We would like to thank Ashwani Aggarwal, ILO Senior Skills and Employment Specialist for

Eastern and Southern Africa, for initiating, designing and leading the study and producing

this paper.

Girma Agune

Chief Skills and Employability Branch

Employment Policy Department, ILO, Geneva

Vic van Vuuren Director

DWT for Eastern and Southern Africa and ILO Country Office, Pretoria

iv

Contents Foreword ................................................................................................................................................. iii

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. vi

Acronyms and abbreviations .................................................................................................................. vii

1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 What is RPL? ................................................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Key drivers and benefits ................................................................................................................. 4

2 The RPL process ................................................................................................................................ 6

2.1 Awareness and publicity ................................................................................................................ 8

2.2 Counselling and facilitation ............................................................................................................ 8

2.3 Assessment and certification ......................................................................................................... 8

2.4 Quality assurance of RPL .............................................................................................................. 10

2.5 RPL appeal procedures ................................................................................................................. 10

2.6 Skills gap training ......................................................................................................................... 10

3 Key barriers to RPL, and the building blocks of establishing a successful RPL system ..................... 11

3.1 Awareness, Vocational Guidance and Counselling ...................................................................... 11

3.2 Integrating RPL with policy, legal and regulatory frameworks for education and training systems ..................................................................................................................................................... 13

3.3 Stakeholder ownership and commitment ................................................................................... 14

3.4 Institutional frameworks and the capacity for RPL ...................................................................... 15

3.5 The capacity of RPL professionals ................................................................................................ 16

3.6 Matching occupational and qualification standards .................................................................... 17

3.7 Assessment methodologies ......................................................................................................... 19

3.8 Costs and funding ......................................................................................................................... 22

3.9 Upgrading skills ............................................................................................................................ 25

3.10 Quality assurance ......................................................................................................................... 26

3.11 Monitoring and Evaluation........................................................................................................... 27

3.12 Knowledge management and sharing .......................................................................................... 28

4 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 29

5 Annex : Characteristics of RPL in Latin America and the Caribbean ................................................ 31

6 References ..................................................................................................................................... 32

List of Figures

Figure 1: The proportion of youth enrolled in secondary education and TVET............................................... 1

Figure 2: RPL flow chart ................................................................................................................................... 7

List of Boxes

Box 1: Recommendation of International Organizations and Regional Bodies ............................................... 2

Box 2: Frequently used terminology ................................................................................................................ 3

Box 3: Example of the benefit of RPL in increasing productivity and compliance with regulatory

requirements ................................................................................................................................................... 4

Box 4: RPL for admission to University of the Western Cape (UWC), South Africa ......................................... 5

v

Box 5: An example of RPL contributing to self-esteem and lifelong learning ................................................. 6

Box 6: CEDEFOP assessment methods for RPL ................................................................................................ 9

Box 7: Self-evaluation for RPL using web-based computer software ............................................................ 12

Box 8: Main stakeholders in VPL [RPL] in the Netherlands ........................................................................... 14

Box 9: Examples of social partners’ involvement in RPL ............................................................................... 15

Box 10: Building the capacity of RPL professionals – country practices ........................................................ 17

Box 11: Nature of evidence for RPL as recommended by Queensland State, Australia ............................... 19

Box 12: Assessment methodologies – country examples ............................................................................. 20

Box 13: The e-RPL Initiative within the Grain Silo industry ........................................................................... 21

Box 14: Key factors in RPL costs for candidates ............................................................................................ 23

Box 15: The taximeter system for funding RPL in Denmark .......................................................................... 23

Box 16: RPL funding and cost-sharing – examples from countries around the world................................... 24

Box 17: Skills gap training: country practices ................................................................................................ 25

Box 18: Quality assurance for RPL in the Netherlands and Tanzania ............................................................ 26

vi

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank policy and decision makers from various countries and institutions for

reviewing this paper. Key institutions include South Africa Qualifications Authority (SAQA),

Mauritius Qualification Authority (MQA), Vocational Education and Training Authority,

Tanzania, and Seychelles Qualification Authority. The paper also received valuable feedback

from tripartite constituents from 10 countries (Botswana, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Namibia,

Nigeria, Swaziland, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe) that participated in the tripartite workshop

on ‘Innovative practices on skills training for employment of vulnerable youth’, which was

organized by the Africa Regional Labour Administration Centre (ARLAC) in Harare in 2014. I am

also thankful to the participants of ILO Turin Skills Academy 2013 and the ILO Turin Academy

on Formalisation of Informal Economy 2014, who discussed the findings and gave

recommendations.

I specifically thank Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) Secretariat, particularly Ms

Lomthandazo Mavimbela and Mr Arnold Chitambo, for supporting the study and providing

useful information and feedback.

I am grateful to Ms Azita Awad Berar, Director, Employment Policy Department, ILO–Geneva,

who gave immense support to the work on the recognition of prior learning. My sincere thanks

also to Mr Girma Agune, Chief, Skills and Employability Branch, ILO–Geneva, for providing

continuous encouragement and guidance. My thanks also to Ms Christine Evans-Klock, Mr James

Windell, Mr Paul Comyn, Mr Fernando Vargas, Ms Christine Hofmann, Ms Mwila Chigaga, Ms

Aurelia Segatti, Mr Asfaw Kidanu and Mr Albert Okal for reviewing the paper and giving useful

suggestions. Furthermore, comments and feedback from other colleagues in DWT Pretoria on

drafts of the paper were much appreciated.

I express my gratitude to Mr Vic van Vuuren, Director ILO DWT/Country Office, Pretoria, for his

motivation and for reviewing the paper. Thanks also to Mr Alexio Musindo, Director, ILO–Dar-es-

Salaam, and Mr Joni Musabayana, Deputy Director, ILO–Pretoria, for supporting my work. I

would also like to thank Ms Geerija Aggarwal for voluntarily helping in editing and formatting.

Thanks to Ms Tshepo Kau and Ms Irene Maminze for their support in proof-reading, printing and

publishing the paper. Last, but not least, the role of the ILO Regional Office for Africa is

acknowledged for creating an environment that fosters research and knowledge-sharing.

Ashwani Aggarwal Senior Specialist (Skills and Employment)

for Eastern and Southern Africa ILO, DWT Pretoria

vii

Acronyms and abbreviations

ACI Area of critical importance

APEL Assessment of prior experiential learning

APL Assessment of prior learning ARLAC Africa Regional Labour Administration Centre AU African Union

CEDEFOP European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training

DWT Decent Work Technical Support Team

EU The European Union

ICT Information and communication technologies

ILC International Labour Conference

ILO International Labour Organization

ILS International labour standards

LLL Lifelong learning

LMI Labour market information

LMIS Labour market information system

M&E Monitoring and evaluation

MIS Management Information System

MQA Mauritius Qualification Authority

NGO Non-governmental organization

NQF National Qualifications Framework

NSDP National Skills Development Policy

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PDC Portfolio Development Course

PLAR Prior learning assessment and recognition

PWD Persons with disabilities

RAC Recognition of acquired competences

RAS Recognition of acquired skills

RNFIL Recognition of non-formal and informal learning

RPL Recognition of prior learning

RVCC Recognition, validation and certification of competences

SADC Southern African Development Community

SD Skills development

SDP Skills development policy

SETA Sector Education and Training Authority

TAP Tests for access and placement

TEVET Technical Entrepreneurship Vocational Education and Training

TVET Technical and Vocational Education and Training

UNESCO United Nations Education Scientific Cultural and Organisation

UNISA University of South Africa

UWC University of the Western Cape

VET Vocational Education and Training

VETA Vocational Education and Training Authority

VNFIL Validation of non-formal and informal learning

VT Vocational Training

WPL Workplace Learning

Recognition of prior learning (RPL): Key success factors and the

building blocks of an effective system

1 Introduction

For any country, lifelong learning is a key to building human capital and being innovative

and competitive in a globalized, fast-changing world. Most learning in an individual’s life

takes place through non-formal and informal means, whether at work, home, or elsewhere.

In fact, in many developing countries with high school dropout rates, the majority of young

people, especially informal apprentices, acquire workplace skills by informal means. For

example, the gross enrolment ratio for upper secondary education in low-income countries

is 29 per cent, of which only five per cent represents technical and vocational education

(TVET) (Figure 1). In the absence of recognized qualifications, they face severe

disadvantages as far as finding decent jobs, migrating to other regions and accessing further

education. Unfortunately, most formal education systems are not geared to recognize non-

formal and informal learning. This not only hinders the development of human capital, but is

also a cause of its under-utilization. As a result, the recognition of knowledge, skills and

competencies acquired through non-formal and informal means is becoming a highly

aspirational, political and social issue, attracting the attention of policy makers.

Figure 1: The proportion of youth enrolled in secondary education and TVET

Source: UNESCO, 2012b.

29%

5%

48%

5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Upper secondary gross enrolment ratio

TVET as a share of secondary enrolment

Lower middle income countries Low income countries

2

Key international standards of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the United

Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), as well as EU and AU

policy papers, have recommended that all countries should establish a recognition of prior

learning (RPL) system (Box 1). Most national policies covered under the study on

comparative analysis of national skills development policies likewise recommend setting up

RPL systems (Aggarwal and Gasskov, 2013).

Box 1: Recommendation of International Organizations and Regional Bodies

International Labour Standards and International Labour Conferences (ILC) have emphasised the importance of recognition of prior learning (RPL), and recommended establishing systems for it.

The ILO Recommendation on Human Resources Development: Education, Training and Lifelong

Learning (No. 195) calls on Member States to establish a framework for the recognition and certification of skills, including prior learning and previous experience, irrespective of the countries where they were acquired and whether formally or informally (ILO, 2004).

The ILO call for action on youth employment also recommends that governments give serious consideration to developing systems of RPL, non-formal education and skills acquired on the job (ILO, 2012).

The Committee for the Recurrent Discussion on Employment of ILC 2014 recommends that the employment policy may include policies for system of skills recognition (ILO, 2014a).

The ILO multilateral framework on labour migration (ILO, 2006) and the DG report to the ILC 2014 on Fair migration (ILO, 2014b) stress the importance of skills recognition.

ILC 2014 report ‘Transitioning from the informal to the formal economy’ states that ‘it is necessary to develop institutions and mechanisms that assess the skills and competencies acquired by workers so that they can be validated and recognized through certification’ (ILO, 2014c).

UNESCO states that RPL is important for poverty reduction, job-creation and employment (UNESCO, 2012a). European guidelines on the validation of non-formal and informal learning lists key drivers for RPL as overcoming a qualifications deficit; addressing sectoral skills shortages; and achieving coherence between (EU) countries (CEDEFOP, 2009). A World Bank report on lifelong learning for global knowledge economy also emphasise the importance of the recognition of non-formal and informal learning, particularly in developing countries, having limited provision of formal education and training (The World Bank, 2003).

In view of the importance of RPL, most countries in Africa have initiated steps towards

establishing RPL systems, but the majority face challenges to their successful

implementation. Therefore, policy makers from many countries are seeking support from

the ILO and other institutions in this area. The Decent Work Programme developed by the

Southern African Development Community (SADC) has recommended the development of

regional RPL guidelines, and has requested ILO support in this area. It is against this

background that this paper has been produced, taking into account the experiences of many

countries, with the aim of building the capacity of policy makers and social partners in

establishing an effective RPL system.

3

In developing this paper, International Labour Standards and literature from key

international development institutions such as the ILO, UNESCO, the European Centre for

the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP), the Organisation for Economic Co-

operation and Development (OECD), European Commission, and the World Bank, not to

mention the experiences of countries from around the world were considered. Intensive

consultations were held with key stakeholders who were implementing RPL in South Africa,

Mauritius, Seychelles, Namibia, Botswana, Hong Kong, Canada and Bangladesh. The author

has also directly advised and supervised the design and implementation of RPL programmes

in India, Tanzania and Zimbabwe; those experiences were used in preparing the paper.

Experts from the ILO and many countries reviewed the paper and the finding and

recommendations were also presented and discussed at the regional Africa Regional Labour

Administration Centre (ARLAC) tripartite workshop, the ILO Turin Skills Academy, the ILO

Turin Academy on the Formalisation of Informal Economy and at other workshops.

1.1 What is RPL?

RPL is a process used to identify, assess and certify a person’s knowledge, skills and

competencies – regardless of how, when or where the learning occurred – against

prescribed standards for a part (modular) or full qualification (NSW DET, 2009; MQA, 2009;

VETA, 2014).

The process emphasizes three key aspects. The first refers to the processes related to

identifying non-formal and informal learning (including self-evaluation); the collection and

presentation of evidence of learning; the assessment and validation of the evidence; and

issuing a recognized qualification if claims are valid. The second concerns the independence

of the learning method. The third specifies that only the learning that conforms to standards

of a qualification (full or part) is to be certified by an authorized body. Although RPL is

primarily an assessment process,

it does need to be integrated with

counselling1, mediation and skills

gap training to ensure a

successful outcome.

There is no standard terminology

for RPL; some of the terms and

acronyms used are given in Box 2.

This paper will use the term RPL throughout.

1 In the context of RPL, the term Counselling refers to vocational guidance and counselling.

Box 2: Frequently used terminology

APEL Assessment of prior experiential learning APL Assessment of prior learning PLAR Prior learning assessment and recognition RAC Recognition of acquired competences RAS Recognition of acquired skills RCC Recognition of current competences RNFIL Recognition of non-formal and informal learning RPL Recognition of prior learning RVCC Recognition, validation, and certification of competences

VNFIL Validation of non-formal and informal learning

4

1.2 Key drivers and benefits

RPL has the potential to improve employability, mobility, lifelong learning, social inclusion

and self-esteem. More and more countries are in the process of establishing RPL systems,

for which the key drivers are:

Promoting social inclusion and equity for disadvantaged groups – early school leavers, retrenched workers, ethnic minorities – by valuing experiential learning and providing them with opportunities to obtain qualifications

Encouraging lifelong learning in order to create a competent and adaptable workforce that can meet the challenges of a fast-changing labour market, address skills shortages and gaps and allow holistic development

Providing access to higher education

Meeting regulatory requirements of some sectors in terms of employing qualified persons

Improving efficiency and flexibility in education systems by allowing alternative learning pathways – workplace, non-formal, and informal learning – and fast-tracking the acquisition of qualifications

Enhancing migrant workers’ skills portability, and their mobility

Fostering employability, and thus better, decent jobs

Contributing to transition from the informal to the formal economy.

In Tanzania, for example, RPL is used as a way to identify skills gaps and hence workers’

training needs. The OECD report on recognition of non-formal and informal learning states

that while countries facing skills shortages often have unemployed workers with the

required skills, such workers are invisible as they lack formal qualifications. Here, RPL

contributes to reducing skills shortages by certifying and making visible such knowledge

and skills (Werquin, 2010b).

The importance of RPL is perhaps most

strongly felt in South Africa, where the

majority of the population suffered

educational discriminated during the

apartheid regime. Therefore, South

Africans are passionate about RPL,

which has been initiated in 20 sectors

and at all levels of qualifications (SAQA,

2014). Most higher education institutes

in South Africa now accept RPL for

admission to undergraduate studies,

and the University of South Africa

(UNISA) has developed an RPL tool to

Box 3: Example of the benefit of RPL in increasing productivity and compliance with regulatory

requirements

Employers in South Africa’s grain silo industry,

where the RPL of more than 1,000 workers took

place, confirmed that it:

Improved workers’ confidence, self-esteem and

motivation to learn

Increased the productivity and competitiveness

Enabled compliance with Food Hygiene and Food

Safety standards

Facilitated successful candidates to enter higher

learning programmes such as AgriSETA-

registered learnerships. Source: Bayman, Naude and Bolton (forthcoming.)

5

assess the suitability of candidates for Masters and Doctoral degrees (Smith, 2014). Two

successful examples confirming benefits in terms of access to higher education and lifelong

learning, increasing productivity, compliance with regulatory requirements and increase in

self-esteem are discussed in Boxes 3 and 4.

For other countries using RPL as a means to access higher education, a report by the

European Commission revealed that out of 47 higher education systems for which data was

available, RPL could be used for access to higher education, or for progression in higher

education, or both, for 24 (European Commission, 2013). In Australia, RPL commences at

the start of a person's training, apprenticeship or traineeship, the purpose being to grant

credit for the units in which the person is already competent, thus reducing the time needed

to obtain the qualification (Queensland Government, 2014).

An ILO study on RPL states that its outcomes were generally positive for workers: they

gained self-esteem, improved employability and, in most cases, it was either part of, or led

to, further education and training. The study also mentions that it was sometimes

undertaken to address specific challenges faced by various industries, for example, overall

decline in business or quality related issues, with objectives being met in all cases (Dyson

and Keating, 2005).

Box 4: RPL for admission to University of the Western Cape (UWC), South Africa

In 2001, UWC started using RPL for those who lacked formal entry qualifications to an

undergraduate degree. It used two methods: Portfolio Development Course (PDC) and

standardized admission tests (tests for access and placement, or TAP). For the first method,

mediation services were provided to candidates in preparing a portfolio to evidence their prior

learning, while in the second one they were examined directly as to whether they had the required

linguistic, thinking and learning abilities. The results indicated that:

Candidates were able to register for undergraduate study using any of these two routes.

The portfolio approach was the preferred method (800 applied for PDC against 250 for

TAP)

The popularity of the RPL programme increased rapidly, with the number of applications

rising from just over 100 in 2001 to 1,050 by 2010

The majority of candidates registered were women (in 2010, 67 per cent were female)

Since inception, the average age of candidates has declined (It was 43.6 years of age in

2006 and 33.8 in 2010)

A tracer study of three batches of students showed that 63.9 per cent completed the

programme, with PDC students performing marginally better than TAP students.

Overall, the programme has been so successful that UWC has had to increase its capacity for RPL.

Source: Ralphs et al. (forthcoming).

6

An example of RPL contributing to self-esteem and lifelong learning is given in Box 5.

It is clear from various studies and country experiences that RPL has potential to benefit all

stakeholders: workers, employers, community, government and education and training

providers. However, the RPL process must be carried out in a credible and transparent

manner if the labour market and educational institutions are to value the knowledge, skills

and competences of certificate holders.

2 The RPL process

Although RPL processes and nomenclature vary among countries, the core of RPL involves

two key processes: counselling and facilitation, and assessment and certification. These are

supported by mechanisms such as awareness and publicity, quality assurance, appeals and

skills gap training. A generic flow chart explaining RPL processes is shown in Figure 2, and

the key processes are described below:

Box 5: An example of RPL contributing to self-esteem and lifelong learning

In Bangladesh, Mr Delowar Hossain, an electrician who received a formal qualification through RPL, stated: ‘I am the Chairperson of Electricians’ Association of my district, working in the sector for more than 25 years without any certificate. I am so proud to receive my first certificate in life, and that the government has recognised my skills. This has motivated me to get higher qualification in future, and I will also encourage all the members of my association to obtain this certificate. This process would also help them to improve their knowledge and skills to meet the requirements of the qualification, and thus provide better services to customers’. Source: Dass (forthcoming).

7

A facilitator guides the candidate about RPL

procedure and requirements, and their suitability for

a qualification

Candidate submits the application and evidence/

portfolio

Assessor assesses it and interviews the candidate

Suitable

Not suitable

Suitable

Candidate assessed against the

standards for the selected qualification(s)

Suitable

Suitable Applicants informed about the shortcomings, including skills gaps, and assisted in overcoming these through training,

mentoring and other forms of support.

Not suitable

Not suitable

Awareness-generation about RPL and

making information easily accessible

A generic RPL flow chart

Candidate is successful and

obtains a certificate

Assessor guides the candidate in

preparation for the final assessment

Suitable

Aw

aren

ess

and

p

ub

licit

y

Co

un

selli

ng

and

fa

cilit

atio

n

Ass

essm

ent

and

ce

rtif

icat

ion

Ap

pea

l

Figure 2: RPL flow chart

Note: RPL process used by various countries, including Australia, Mauritius, Tanzania, and the EU was considered while preparing this generic flow

chart. While the purpose is to show how RPL takes place, adapting the model to suit the local context is important – one approach doesn’t suit all.

Skill

s ga

p t

rain

ing

8

2.1 Awareness and publicity

This process builds awareness and interest about RPL in potential candidates, employers,

and other stakeholders. The RPL agency (the national institution responsible for RPL) and

providers play a key role, publicizing what is RPL, what its benefits are, whom to contact, as

well as the process, estimated costs, timeframe, eligibility requirements and assistance

available. This publicity and awareness-building takes place on different platforms,

including websites, social networking, information sessions at workplaces and education

institutions, fairs, and the media.

2.2 Counselling and facilitation

During this process, candidates interested in the RPL obtain detailed information and

orientation from facilitators appointed by an RPL provider. The facilitators assess

candidates’ suitability for a specific qualification (full or part), provide the necessary

information about learning outcomes and competency standards required for the

qualification and the nature of evidence required. The candidate also obtains an application

form and documents detailing RPL process and its requirements. The RPL facilitator and the

information should help a candidate in deciding whether to apply for RPL, and for which

qualification and at what level.

2.3 Assessment and certification

This is a key RPL process and involves a number of steps: application screening, guidance to

the candidate by an assessor in building evidences and portfolio, assessment, and award of

certificate. First, the candidate’s application is sent to an assessor, who screens the

application and the evidence. Thereafter the assessor interviews the candidate and, if

required, guides him or her on how to improve the evidence. Once the assessor is satisfied,

the candidate will be advised as to the nature of final assessment (test). If the assessor is not

satisfied, the candidate will be told of the shortcomings and advised as to how to overcome

those (for example, collecting additional evidence or upgrading the knowledge and skills).

As Paulet (2013) says, ‘The objective of assessment is not only to award a qualification but

also to steer candidates’ personal and professional progress, and to provide them with the

tools to do that.’

Vital difference exists between countries in the last stage of assessment: in some countries,

such as Tanzania and South Africa (for artisans), final trade test is compulsory, but this is

not the case in France, Australia and Mauritius. Where compulsory, the test/examination is

the final step of the assessment. If not, the assessor(s) can declare a candidate successful

based the evaluation and interview. The RPL agency then awards the certificate to the

successful candidate. Some agencies carry out moderation of assessment results in line with

their country practice before declaring results and awarding certificates.

9

The European guidelines for non-formal and informal learning have eight categories of

assessment methods. These are given in Box 6.

Box 6: CEDEFOP assessment methods for RPL

Eight assessment methods as per CEDEFOP are:

1. Debate offers the candidate an opportunity to demonstrate their depth of knowledge as well as their communicative skills.

2. Declarative methods admit an individual’s personal identification and recording of their competencies

and are normally signed by a third party in order to verify the self-assessment.

3. Interviews can be used to clarify issues raised in documentary evidence presented and/or to review scope and depth of learning.

4. Observation enables the extraction of an individual’s evidence of competence while they are performing everyday tasks at work.

5. Portfolio method, which uses a mix of methods and instruments employed in consecutive stages to produce a coherent set of documents or work samples that show an individual’s skills and competencies in different ways.

6. Presentation, which can be formal or informal and can check the individual’s ability to present information in a way that is appropriate to the subject and the audience.

7. Simulation and evidence extracted from work, i.e., where individuals are placed in a situation that fulfills

all the criteria of the real-life scenario in order to assess their competences.

8. Tests and examinations to identify and validate informal and non-formal learning through, or with the

help of, examinations in the formal system. Source: CEDEFOP, 2009.

Not all countries use same assessment methods. France, for example, typically uses the

declarative method (Paulet, 2013). The portfolio method is also widely used. A portfolio is a

collection of evidence prepared by a candidate in support of their claim of meeting the

requisite skills and competencies of a formal qualification. The nature of evidence

recommended by various countries and development agencies includes certificates and

awards; letters of recommendation; samples of work; videos and/or photographs of work

activities; skills logbooks; details of formal training, records of seminars, conferences and

workshops attended; resume and performance appraisals; testimonials from current or

previous employers; and job descriptions.

The assessment tools and methods should be (NSW DET, 2009; UNESCO, 2012a; VETA, 2014):

Valid (assess the desired competences)

Reliable and consistent (various assessors use the same assessment tools and methods and obtain the same results)

Transparent (candidates, assessors and moderators are aware of the assessment tools and methods and standards)

Equitable and flexible (candidates’ needs are taken into account – time, place and method)

Manageable and achievable (the assessment should be possible within the time and resources available)

Fair (allowing for appeal)

10

Moreover, evidence-gathering needs to comply with the rules of evidence, which require it

to be:

Valid (covers key competences of a qualification)

Sufficient (allows assessors to make decisions on the level of competency )

Current (contemporary)

Authentic (examples of the candidate’s own work)

2.4 Quality assurance of RPL

To ensure the credibility and consistency of RPL certification, countries specify quality

assurance mechanisms. Those most frequently used are:

Establishing common standards

Ensuring the availability of competent RPL practitioners

Collaborating with employers’ and workers’ organizations and other relevant

stakeholders

Developing assessment tools and methodologies

Accrediting RPL centres

Moderating assessments

Monitoring and evaluation frameworks

Independent auditing of the entire RPL process

Disseminating results.

2.5 RPL appeal procedures

Countries also prescribe an appeal process so that candidates can ask for a review of the

decision(s) made at any stage of the RPL process.

2.6 Skills gap training

Some countries make provision for skills upgrading programmes so that candidates can fill

skills gaps and meet desired standards. In South Africa, for example, mediation tools are

being used to assist learners in navigating from workplace learning to academic knowledge.

There are other prerequisites for establishing an RPL system, among them being the

development of competency standards, qualifications and assessment tools; the

accreditation of RPL providers and assessors; the development of monitoring and

evaluation (M&E) systems, including management information system (MIS); and the

capacity building of institutions and staff. Some of these might be available in a country as

part of education system (These issues will be discussed in the next section). The

characteristics of RPL in Latin America and the Caribbean are given in Annex 1.

11

3 Key barriers to RPL, and the building blocks of

establishing a successful RPL system

Despite high expectation from RPL, many countries are experiencing a slow

implementation, and difficulty in upscaling from project-based implementation to

establishing a sustainable national RPL system that is accessible to all. The key barriers as

well as the strategies (building blocks) in successfully implementing RPL on a large scale are

discussed below:

3.1 Awareness, Vocational Guidance and Counselling

RPL is an evolving concept, not only many different terminologies and definitions are used,

but processes also vary in various countries. Confusing language and differing definitions of

RPL hinder effective discussions and act as a barrier to its effective implementation

(Bowmen et al., 2003). Like any new concept, it takes time for stakeholders to fully accept it.

Moreover, the majority are unaware of RPL, its processes and methodologies, its

acceptability by employers for employment and by higher educational institutions for

admission to further education and training programmes. Christensen (2013) states that

low awareness of RPL in Norway, particularly among those with low formal education, for

example, is the biggest challenge to increasing its uptake and requires a targeted

information strategy.

For many countries, the RPL methodology for assessing the knowledge and skills of persons

– discussed in a subsequent section – is fairly complex, and the candidates applying for RPL

require significant support and counselling during the various processes. In a successful RPL

system, the nature of the relationship between the assessor and the candidate is quite

different than seen in a traditional, formal education system. The assessors, while

maintaining quality and accuracy in the assessment, must provide correct information about

the process as a whole and guide candidates in collecting evidence. For example, while a

candidate may have all the necessary credentials, he/she may not know how to present

them. Hence, before beginning the formal application process, candidates must be presented

with full information about the qualifications and competency standards, the costs and the

time frame and the advantages of RPL.

In Tanzania, counselling is provided by both facilitators and assessors. Facilitators provide

information about the RPL process and requirements, while assessors offer specific

guidance and information related to the assessment procedure. The aim is to provide

effective counselling right from the start, so that suitable candidates are identified and the

rejections at the final assessment stage are minimized. This also helps to reduce costs and

prevent the RPL system from being overloaded, particularly at the assessment stage. To this

end, some countries now emphasize the use of ICT for improving the effectiveness and

12

efficiency of the vocational guidance and counselling system. For example, in Queensland,

Australia, individuals first visit a Skilling Solutions Centre (often in a local shopping centre)

and use a web-based self-evaluation tool to match their skills, knowledge and experience to

a relevant qualification (full or part) (Box 7). This takes about 15 minutes. They are then

provided with a list of preferred RPL providers where they can undergo the RPL process

(IARC, n.d.). The Australian government’s website2 is very user-friendly and provides

complete information as well as tips and hints.

The New South Wales (2014) website not only provides detailed information about RPL, but

also offers recognition guides for training providers, candidates, assessors and employers as

well as an RPL Practice Models Catalogue (a list of valuable RPL resources from various

sectors). To build awareness and consensus about RPL, some countries organize national

conferences and stakeholders’ workshops. In 2014, for example, the Vice-President of

Tanzania, along with the Ministers of Education and Labour, inaugurated a national RPL

conference and distributed certificates to successful candidates. The visual and print media

publicized the event nationally, thereby furthering the positive effects of RPL.

A well-directed strategy can indeed help in creating awareness about RPL and its potential

benefits, and in building positive attitudes.

2 www.training.qld.gov.au/information/rpl.html. Accessed 5 January 2015.

The on-line self-evaluation checklist takes a user through following steps, building knowledge about the process and matching their skills and knowledge with a qualification (part or full).

1. Examining the list of government priorities and plans, the benefits of RPL, and the cost and time required.

2. Selecting the qualification that is most suited to one’s area of expertise from a list of approved qualifications, such as the HLT32812 Certificate III in Health Support Services (FOOD SERVICES).

3. Identifying one’s skills against a list of competency groups and units of competency. For example, the website lists 11 competency groups for the qualification chosen in the previous step.

4. Matching one’s skills with those of the qualification. The website does this automatically and lists the qualifications for which one’s skills are a potential match, and to what extent.

5. Identifying and collecting evidence: The website provides guidance on the nature of evidence to be gathered together as well which types are permissible.

6. Viewing RPL providers: Candidates can search for providers offering RPL for their chosen qualifications using specific websites (training.gov.au or myskills.gov.au) or the Yellow Pages. The report generated should be printed out and taken to the provider for discussion with an assessor, who will give more specific advice about the enrolment procedure and the evidence required.

Source: Queensland Government, 2014.

Box 7: Self-evaluation for RPL using web-based computer software

13

Building block 1: Building awareness about RPL and providing effective vocational guidance and counselling services to RPL candidates.

3.2 Integrating RPL with policy, legal and regulatory frameworks for

education and training systems

An RPL system should be an integral part of a country’s education and training system. It

should promote alternate pathways to acquiring qualifications, ensuring parity between

RPL and formal education; facilitate lifelong learning; and ensure the allocation of sufficient

resources so that stakeholders will take it seriously and prioritize its development and

implementation. These objectives can be accomplished if national policies concerning

employment, poverty reduction, development, migration, education and training emphasize

the implementation of RPL. Singh and Duvekot (2013) state:

The country cases show that those countries with established [RPL] systems are also

those that have made RVA3 a priority in their political agenda, and have adopted

policies and legislation specifically related to RVA in their education systems…. In

France, the strong legal base of RVA assures each person’s right to have their formally,

informally and non-formally acquired experiences assessed.

In Denmark, every 18 to 25-year-old has the right to RPL, as do those undertaking adult

vocational training (Andersen and Aagaard, 2013). Dutch VET law ensures parity of skills

acquired from formal learning with those gained from non-formal/informal learning; the

skills are assessed through a system independent of learning pathways (Duvekot, 2013). In

Finland, adults with more than five years of documented work experience are eligible for

applying for a journeyman’s or craft certificate through RPL. If their documents meet the

requirements, they undertake the same final examination (theory and practical) as

apprentices. If successful, they can then apply for admission to higher education

(Christensen, 2013). In Australia, RPL is part of the Australian Quality Training Framework

charter and the standards for Registered Training Organisations. Under these charters and

standards it is mandatory for RPL to be offered to all applicants on enrolment (IARC, n.d.).

There is also a need to envisage RPL from a sub-regional perspective. National

domestication is important, but, if dealt with in isolation, there is a risk of seeing RPL for

migrant workers remaining unaddressed. RPL for non-nationals should also be streamlined

in RPL policies, and institutions should be sensitized to the need to mainstream migration in

their procedures and systems. The role of regional bodies in promoting RPL within regional 3 This is another term for RPL.

14

qualification frameworks is also very important, and synergies should be established

between regional processes and mainstreaming migration in RPL processes at national

level. For example, SADC member States asked the body to develop a regional RPL strategy

and integrate RPL in the regional migration policy in order to bring coherence to their

individual efforts.

Building block 2: Integrating RPL policy with policy, legal and regulatory frameworks for education and training system.

3.3 Stakeholder ownership and commitment

The effective participation of stakeholders, especially employers’ and workers’

organizations, in education and training systems is essential to ensuring that training

matches the needs of the labour market. This presents a challenge for many countries, and

all the more so in those with a large informal economy, as establishing collaboration with

informal sector enterprises is in itself an obstacle. Accordingly, the involvement of social

partners in RPL is also impacted by their overall involvement in the education and training

system. However, low participation in RPL doesn’t necessarily reflect apathy towards it.

While workers’ organizations

are generally supportive of

RPL, employers’ organizations

give off mixed signals. Some

have led the implementation

of RPL, others are

apprehensive. Key factors

influencing the likelihood of

employers encouraging their

employees to pursue RPL are

as follows:

Is employing qualified workers a regulatory requirement or a condition for obtaining

international quality assurance certification?

Are importers concerned about employees’ qualifications?

What are its costs and the benefits?

Will RPL decrease absenteeism or encourage demands for promotions and higher

wages?

Is there an established a link between skills and productivity?

Are they fully aware of RPL and do they trust the quality of RPL system?

1. National authorities, which facilitate the development and implementation of VPL (law, finance).

2. Social partners, who encourage organizations to use VPL (through sectoral regulations and training funds).

3. Schools, which provide access to standards by using VPL procedures.

4. Companies and organizations, which guide their employees towards VPL.

5. Citizens who can, with or without support from VPL providers, build up their personal portfolio for VPL procedures.

Source: Duvekot, 2013.

Box 8: Main stakeholders in VPL [RPL] in the Netherlands

15

This is a type of ‘chicken or egg?’ situation. Do employers need to have trust in the RPL

system before deciding to participate, or vice versa? RPL is not the only training sub-system

where employers’ views are divided; many won’t even offer apprenticeships.

It is very important to ensure active participation of all stakeholders (Box 8 and 9),

especially employers and workers, in the planning, implementation and evaluation of RPL,

so that they not only ensure quality but also recognize the benefits of RPL.

Building block 3: Ensuring the active participation of all stakeholders, particularly social partners, in the development, implementation and evaluation of RPL.

3.4 Institutional frameworks and the capacity for RPL

Like any new system, RPL requires a clearly defined institutional framework for planning

and management. Some countries decided to entrust responsibility for RPL to existing

institutions without analysing their existing capacity constraints or awarding additional

resources. RPL was thus viewed as a similar form of assessment that many institutions

implement for formal education and training systems, and allocated the responsibility for

RPL to them. As a result, public education and training institutions (and private ones also

In South Africa, employers’ and workers’ organizations participate in the design and implementation of RPL through their respective sector education and training authorities; employers also directly promote RPL in many sectors, including insurance, banking, agriculture and the media.

In Brazil, the SENAI certification [RPL] system aims to actively involve enterprises right from the design stage, and to promote human resources policies that favour the recognition of competencies for developing a career. The system considers occupational profiles, prepared jointly with representatives from enterprises and workers in the sectoral technical committees, as the reference for assessment (Vargas, 2004).

PETROBRAS, Brazil’s largest corporation, has established a certification system for its employees, especially for those working in the areas of quality control function, in order to ensure competent personnel for safe installations and operational continuity (Vargas, 2004). One of its governance principles is: ‘We invest in our employees because we know it is impossible to achieve excellence without valuing people’. For more information, see www.petrobras.com/en/about-us/.

In Iceland, RPL is a priority for employer and employee organization (Velciu, 2014) and in the United States, enterprises work with colleges and universities to determine how workers can gain access to, or credit within, college courses. In New Zealand, Industry Training Organizations, mostly funded by industry, have developed industry-based RPL models and carry out or supervise the assessments within the framework for quality assurance prescribed by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (Dyson and Keating, 2005).

A report for the European Trade Union Confederation notes that trade unions in some countries, for example, Great Britain and Romania, train some members to become ‘activists’, who then provide information and guidance to workers. The same report also recommends that collective bargaining take up the issue of RPL (Damesin, Fayolle and Fleury, 2012).

Box 9: Examples of social partners’ involvement in RPL

16

became RPL providers, mistakenly believing that existing formal assessment systems would

cover RPL. In addition, many of these institutions lacked the additional resources and

incentives to promote RPL as well as the capacity to implement RPL. As a result, the

implementation of RPL was ineffective. Even countries with a good recognition system

expressed their inability to rapidly scale up RPL due to lack of competent staff and/or

facilities (Werquin, 2008).

In planning an RPL system, then, a country should comprehensively analyze the capacity of

the existing institutional framework(s) for education and training for RPL to be

implemented effectively. Though setting up new institutions for RPL may not be essential,

the capacity of existing institutions will need to be strengthened. This can be achieved by

setting up exclusive RPL units within these institutes, employing additional professionals,

and using ICT to implement and monitor RPL systems. As discussed in the previous section,

the effective involvement of social partners in the institutions is also essential. Tanzania, for

example, is empowering existing institutions to take up RPL, while in Costa Rica, the

National Training Institute has established a specialized unit for RPL (Vargas, 2004). South

Africa is planning to use a mixed approach, setting up a new, overarching national RPL

institute in addition to using existing institutions. In Germany, universities are responsible

for higher education, and Chambers of Crafts, Industry, Commerce and Farming manage VET

(Velciu, 2014).

Resource institutions for developing tools and building the capacity of RPL providers and

professionals are also required. Again, this can again be achieved by strengthening existing

institutions or establishing new ones. For example, Denmark has established a RPL National

Knowledge Centre for the management and dissemination of knowledge about RPL; it plays

an important role for the development of quality standards and methods for assessing prior

learning (Kippersluis, 2014).

Building block 4: Having an effective institutional framework for RPL.

3.5 The capacity of RPL professionals

In most countries, having an inadequate number of competent RPL professionals acts as a

barrier to implementing and scaling up RPL. The system needs professionals to perform key

functions4 including the development of assessment tools; counselling and facilitation;

assessment and certification; quality assurance, audit and appeals; and RPL system and

processes management.

4 This is based on the presumption that the country has clearly defined competency standards.

17

Most shortages are in areas of tools development and the assessment. As a solution, the RPL

system should develop and implement training programmes to build professionals’ capacity

and develop tools, case studies and guides to assist them with carrying out their tasks

effectively. Countries should also have a mechanism for accrediting and/or registering

assessors. Some examples of capacity building in this area are given in Box 10.

Building block 5: Ensuring the availability of sufficient numbers of competent RPL professionals.

3.6 Matching occupational and qualification standards

Assessment under RPL is carried out against standards prescribed for a qualification. Since

potential RPL candidates have acquired a significant portion of their learning at the

workplace, there needs be a close matching of occupational standards with qualification

standards. However, this presents difficulties, chief of which is the distinct problem of

mismatching. This occurs for many reasons. First, these two categories of standards are

controlled and designed by different institutions, and if there is no strong partnership

between the two, mismatching will often result. Second, each has different objectives.

A few countries have developed formal qualifications and training programmes for the assessors:

Australia has developed a learning resource for assessors, namely ‘Informal learning: Learning from experience’, which includes assessment tools and case studies (Vickers, 2014). An RPL guide for assessors has also been developed (New South Wales Government, 2014).

Norway organises annual courses and seminars for assessors and the mentoring of inexperienced assessors. Assessment centres register trained assessors (Christensen, 2013).

The European Centre for Development of Vocational Training recommends networking and a community of practice as a component of a development programme for RPL professionals (CEDEFOP, 2009).

In Slovenia, the National Assessment Centre trains RPL assessors, with funding from participants’ registration fees (Werquin, 2010b).

In Manitoba, Canada, Red River College offers two levels of training: a 40-hour introduction to the PLAR system and an advanced 40-hour course on PLAR (Ibid.).

In South Africa, evaluators are required to be ‘registered assessors’ who are trained and also meet the minimum SAQA criteria to perform assessments in particular sectors. Moreover, the assessor must be qualified at a higher NQF level than the level at which the assessment takes place (Ibid.). RPL practitioners are also trained by public universities.

Box 10: Building the capacity of RPL professionals – country practices

18

Occupational standards, which are decided by labour market, define the standards of

performance (competences) individuals must achieve when carrying out functions of an

occupation (plumber, driver etc.), while qualification standards, designed by educational

institutions, focus on how and what people need to learn as well as how it will be assessed

(CEDEFOP, 2009). Whilst occupational standards influence the latter, the organization of

learning in the education system is based on pedagogic principles, and on building a strong

foundation for lifelong learning. A third difficulty in matching the two is that the

competencies required for an occupation may vary in urban and rural areas, and also

between the formal and the informal sector. In addition, these competencies frequently

change due to a number of factors, such as technological advancements.

Therefore, occupational qualifications are generally broad-based, and in many countries

TVET programmes provide multi-skill training. It would be difficult even for a highly skilled

worker to acquire each and every competency for a full qualification through experiential

learning and successfully acquire the full qualification through RPL alone.

For migrant workers, RPL is further complicated by the challenges associated with the

recognition of foreign qualifications and experience. Here, coherence between national

qualifications and mutual recognition can be promoted by aligning national and regional

qualification frameworks.

Given the above, qualifications should be modular and competency based, with clearly

defined standards or learning outcomes. The standards for full or modular-type (part)

qualifications (against which candidates are assessed should closely match the occupational

standards used in the labour market. If the full qualification covers a broad range of skills,

the modules may be designed in such a manner to serve three distinct purposes:

1. A module (or a combination thereof) must match the standards of the associated

occupation;

2. There must be horizontal and vertical linkages between modules

3. Overall, the modules should come together to cover the standards of the full

qualification.

Sometimes it requires innovative thinking to achieve these three objectives. However,

designing such qualification system allows workers to see their skills assessed and certified,

at least against a module or part qualification and ensures parity with formal education and

training. If desired, workers can take additional modules, furthering their knowledge and

skills, spending less time and money, and thus fulfilling the objective of lifelong learning.

This methodology has the potential to strengthen countries’ National Qualification

Frameworks (NQF). India has designed a new competency based training system called

Modular Employable Skills, which has the aforementioned features. Tanzania is also

restructuring its qualifications along these lines.

19

Assessing and certifying skills of individuals against part qualifications is gaining

momentum, and countries including Mauritius, Australia and Tanzania now offer RPL for

part qualifications as well.

Building block 6: Ensuring the close matching of occupational and qualification

standards (this matching can take place at the level of part qualifications).

3.7 Assessment methodologies

A tried and tested assessment methodology is a critical factor in the successful

implementation of any RPL system. Credibility and confidence in an RPL system, to a great

extent, depends on the use of quality assured means of assessment. Ideally, to ensure parity

of qualifications, the same assessment tools and methodologies should be used for formal as

well as non-formal and informal learning, but the differences in learning contexts and

learners’ characteristics makes this difficult. While quality assurance in a formal system is

carried out at all stages (input, the learning process and outcome) the RPL system cannot do

this for the first two stages as the system has no control over them. To resolve this, a much

more rigorous assessment methodology is used to ensure that only competent candidates

are awarded certificates. However, this results in a complex, time-consuming methodology

(see Section 2.3) that acts as a barrier for accessing RPL. The most widely used approach for

RPL, namely the portfolio method, could be very demanding in relation to collecting

evidence and completing documentation (Box 11), particularly for individuals in the

informal sector or those having a limited formal education. Some candidates may lack the

necessary writing skills for written examinations. Bowman et al. (2003) also lament the fact

that the existing RPL evidence guides and processes remain too academic and jargon-ridden

for many potential applicants.

Box 11: Nature of evidence for RPL as recommended by Queensland State, Australia

Direct Evidence

Workplace observation

Demonstration of skill

Samples of work

The materials or tools with which the candidate works

Referees’ reports

Videos

Audio files

Photos

Published works, such as operational manuals

Indirect Evidence

Industry awards

Job specifications or position descriptions

Curriculum Vitae or Resume

Rosters or timesheets

Budgets

Visual presentations or written speeches

Letters or memos from the workplace

References/letters of support

Evidence of committee work

Reading lists

Workplace training records

Historical Evidence

Written references from past employers

Log books and other records of performance

Certificates or qualifications

Letters of support

Assignments, reports and documentation from previous courses

Past competency based assessments

Record of academic results

Course attendance record

Scrapbooks

Magazine or newspaper articles.

Source: Queensland Government, 2014.

20

In essence, the portfolio method presents the most challenges to RPL, especially in

developing countries with large informal economy, as producing creditable evidence and

testimonials is difficult. Recognizing this, countries are adopting various means to ensure a

fair assessment of knowledge and competency of persons without making the process too

complex. These revised methods include (see also Box 12):

Combining the portfolio

method with a trade test.

Here, the portfolio and other

criteria are used to screen

potential candidates

undergoing a trade test or

examination, thus reducing

reliance exclusively on

portfolio method. For

example, VETA in Tanzania

and NAMB in South Africa

use this method for RPL for

artisans. In Mauritius, a

portfolio and a panel

interview method is used, but

stakeholders while reviewing

the implementation of RPL

recommended

supplementing the existing

methods with a practical

trade test (MQA, 2014).

The trade test method. India,

where 90 per cent of the

workforce is in the informal

economy, uses the trade test

method for RPL (DGET,

2014a). The assessment is,

however, done by

independent bodies,

preferably with the

involvement of the industry

concerned.

Developing and

disseminating case studies

and tools used in successful RPL programmes for the benefit of other assessors. For

example:

Box 12: Assessment methodologies – country examples

The main assessment techniques that exist alongside use of the portfolio approach are interviews, context-based observations, 360-degree assessments, simulation and questionnaires.

The Netherlands has chosen the first three techniques in addition to the portfolio, justifying the choice on the grounds of cost, desired quality and the number of candidates to be assessed. It is regarded as a pioneer from the point of view of its assessment technique, as candidates are entitled to have their learning outcomes recognized in whichever of the four possible ways they prefer.

The United Kingdom makes use of learning portfolios, workplace observation and questionnaires. Here, the idea is to adapt the method to the candidate and their aims.

In Slovenia, the learning portfolio is used to record the knowledge, skills and competencies acquired. Candidates receive assistance from a counsellor, which may be followed by an examination that tests skills and knowledge whose levels are not made clear by the portfolio. Practices vary widely depending on the institution concerned, and at its discretion, and the examination may be written or oral. If oral, it may comprise a discussion, an interview, reasoning with reference to a document, product evaluation, practical tests, a demonstration, simulation or role-playing.

Tertiary education in Flemish Belgium uses is a two-stage procedure: an initial portfolio-based assessment and then a real-time assessment. Successful completion of the first stage is a precondition for proceeding to the second.

In Canada, over half of the candidates (54 per cent) use the ‘challenge’ (examination), followed by the learning portfolio (23 per cent) and the demonstration (23 per cent).

There have been very mild attempts to organise group assessment, as reflected in one project in the Czech Republic. In Switzerland, Swiss Post (the postal services enterprise) already assesses groups of candidates in this manner.

Source: Werquin, 2010b.

21

o Australia has developed resources that help to streamline and simplify RPL

processes as well as minimize the cost to applicants. These resources have been

tested and can be used by RPL providers, enterprises and the candidates for the

followings sectors: automotive; communications, IT, print and graphic arts;

community services and health; construction; manufacturing, engineering and

related services; utilities and electro-technology (New South Wales Government,

2014).

o In Colombia, the National Training Service (SENA) has developed test banks (a set of

questions) for RPL assessors to use during assessment (Vargas, 2004).

In order that its workers might meet international food hygiene and food safety regulations, the grain silo industry in South Africa took an initiative to assess and certify their knowledge and skills (and train them, if necessary) so that they can handle and store grains and oilseeds safely and hygienically. Stakeholders decided that RPL was the best solution to meet the industry’s skills development needs. The initiative – the Amabele e-RPL project – was managed and delivered by Deloitte Consulting in consultation with the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA). It was co-funded by the Agricultural Sector Education and Training Authority (AgriSETA) and employers within the grain silo industry. Deloitte South Africa designed a unique computer-based ‘e-RPL’ model to meet the challenges, namely:

The vast geographical spread of grain silo owners’ organizations (the project was delivered in eight of South Africa’s nine provinces)

Project sites that included rural areas without access to electricity The complication of there being illiterate and semi-literate workers in the industry The requirement of an integrated solution for the continuous recognition of skills, re-training and

upgrading Non-existent competency standards and qualifications The lack of a suitable ‘off-the-shelf’ RPL solution for the industry Employers’ concerns about the loss of productivity during training.

The Amabele e-RPL Competency Based Assessment (CBA) instrument included: Dynamic visuals (animation, photographs and videos) Sound and user interactivity Different ‘test’ options to meet the skills need of individual RPL candidates Near real-time assessment results and reporting. Computer-based assessments were combined with on-the-job observation and written comprehension testing. A mobile computer laboratory was used to reach candidates in those remote areas without electricity. The RPL candidates were assessed against qualifications registered on levels 1, 2 and 3 of South Africa’s National Qualifications Framework (NQF). A total of 1,188 employees qualified for the RPL process. The advantages of this approach included its suitability for the illiterate and semi-literate; its scalability and portability; mass application possible countrywide, and at a lower unit cost and within shorter time frame; suitability for rural and informal economy; and combining assessment and training. Feedback from employers confirmed that RPL visibly improved workers’ confidence, self-esteem and motivation to learn and increased the productivity and competitiveness. It also enabled compliance with Food Hygiene and Food Safety Standards; and facilitated successful candidates to enter higher learning programmes such as AgriSETA-registered learnerships. Source: Bayman, Naude and Bolton, forthcoming.

Box 13: The e-RPL Initiative within the Grain Silo industry

22

In South Africa, the three sub-frameworks of NQF – the General and Further Education

and Training sub-framework, the Higher Education sub-framework and the

Occupational Qualifications sub-framework – guide the implementation of RPL and the

methods used, which can differ between sub-frameworks.

Some countries are concentrating on making the portfolio method more user-friendly,

using ICT for e-RPL or e-portfolio and providing extensive support to candidates. The

approach to assessment is also being transformed, with assessors facilitating and

guiding applicants during the process, and using a combination of methods. For

example:

o Deloitte Consulting used an innovative methodology ‘e-portfolio’ (or e-RPL) as

an alternative to a hard copy portfolio to certify the skills of workers with low

levels of education in South Africa’s grain silo industry (Box 13).

o European guidelines on RPL recommend organizing group sessions for

candidates for preparing portfolios, the latter often being a major challenge for

individual candidates. These group sessions may be complimented with

individual tutorials (CEDEFOP, 2009).

While it is important to ensure that candidates are at the centre of the process (UNESCO,

2012a), this should not be at the expanse of quality. So, there is still an ongoing need to

continue the development of innovative assessment methods for RPL that:

Are less time-consuming, more cost-effective and simple but credible

Take into account the context in which each candidate’s learning has been acquired

and their individual characteristics.

Building block 7: Developing effective and efficient assessment tools and methodologies appropriate to the context of target groups.

3.8 Costs and funding

Obtaining qualifications through RPL is economical compared to the costs of formal

education and training. Even so, it is much more expensive than the assessment and

certification of formal training, which has not only the economies of scale but the marginal

cost also reduces significantly as more students enrol (OECD, 2010a). This is not the case

with RPL, where intensive, personalized counselling and assessment is required. In some

countries, for example Mauritius and Tanzania, a panel of assessors examines a candidate

and may also conducts a site visit to observe the candidate at work (this occurs in the

Seychelles). Such requirements increase the cost of assessment. Initial investment may also

be needed in setting up the system, developing tools and building capacity. Thus, the cost of

RPL depends on the methodology a country adopts, the level and type of qualification and

the extent of the support needed by candidates (Box 14). It also depends on the availability

23

of pre-existing competency

standards and assessment

tools in the country, and

what, if any, institutions are

responsible for RPL. The

costs will be lower if existing

institutions share the

responsibility of RPL. Most

countries do follow this

approach, but some have

underestimated the cost

implications and the

complexity, and thus faced

constraints in implementing

and expanding RPL. Werquin

(2010b) states that the issue

of costs is clearly identified as a challenge in all 22 countries in which the OECD carried out

the RPL study.

Countries should have clear guidelines on cost-sharing of RPL between government,

employers and candidates to ensure its sustainability and the upscaling. This issue was

discussed during three key workshops organized during 2013-14: a tripartite workshop

organized by ARLAC comprising stakeholders from 10 countries, the Skills Academy and the

Formalisation of Informal Economy Academy at the ILO–ITC Turin. The opinions of

participants were initially divided on cost-sharing between key stakeholders – the majority

of participants recommended the government and employers to bear the major proportion

of the cost (see Box 15, as an

example of cost sharing).

They opined that if

candidates are asked to bear

a higher proportion of the

cost, it may act as

disincentive, especially as the

implementation of RPL in

many countries is in still in

preliminary stages and its

benefits have yet to be well

known. In addition,

candidates already have to

bear opportunity costs as

many of them might be

employed and thus may put

off RPL if they have to bear most of the cost. So doing would work against a key objective of

The cost of RPL for a candidate may include registration fees, assessment fees, transport and preparing the portfolio. There may also be an opportunity cost. The Queensland State government’s RPL website states that the cost of RPL can be much lower and take up much less time than the training it replaces. Thus, RPL can reduce the cost of acquiring qualifications. Following factors influence the cost of RPL (Queensland Government, 2014):

Cost depends on the qualification and the amount of RPL undertaken.

The cost of 'gap training', if needed.

Each registered training organisation (RTO) charges differently.

Government contributions may be available in particular circumstances; the relevant RTO can provide details.

Box 14: Key factors in RPL costs for candidates

Box 15: The taximeter system for funding RPL in Denmark

The recognition of non-formal and informal learning is financially supported by the Ministry of Education. The funding is delivered through what is called the ‘taximeter system’, which links one-off funding to institutions according to the number of RVA candidates completing competence assessments, personal study plans, training plans within specific institutions and courses of adult education and training.

Allowance schemes for ‘lost’ earnings during participation in education and training are based on a co-financed system through public and private sources. Private sources include funding by companies through a national fund set up by the social partners and through collective agreements. Co-financing is more or less a universal rule.

Source: Andersen and Aagaard, 2013.

24

RPL, i.e., promoting the social inclusion of disadvantaged groups, in particular those

working in the informal economy.

Employers may feel similarly reluctant, unless RPL is linked to the company’s human

resource management strategy. Initially, then, costs need to be subsidized by government,

as is the case for education and formal training systems. Such subsidies may vary from

target group to target group, i.e. whether RPL is being delivered to those working in the

formal or the informal economy, the employed or unemployed, the nature of qualification

(elementary or higher education, TVET and/or the country policy). However, employers

could bear the opportunity cost, for example, by giving paid leave, and also cost of skill gaps

training and of collecting evidence (See Boxes 13 and 14).

Many countries have education or skills development levies, a part of which could be

assigned to RPL. In many African countries, government/public training institutions bear

the cost of RPL. This is true for Botswana, Mauritius, Namibia, and Tanzania. In South Africa,

SETAs generally use skills development levy for meeting RPL costs, and in some cases

employers also share the cost. India has started an RPL programme for construction

workers, who largely work in the informal economy, with State Construction Welfare

Boards paying the assessment fees (US$165 per person) and skills gap training fees, and

providing a wage allowance (US$0.60 per hour, per person) to offset wages lost during

training (DGET, 2014a). In all these examples, no direct cost was charged to the candidates.

More examples of RPL funding are given in Box 16.

5 Approximate conversion rate: US$1 = Rs60.

Box 16: RPL funding and cost-sharing – examples from countries around the world

An OECD study on the RPL practices of 22 countries noted the use of different cost-sharing methods for RPL. This may reflect factors such as the level and type of qualifications, the candidate’s employment status and country-specific policies. Candidates usually cover a small portion of the cost through registration or entrance fees, although this is not a prerequisite for all countries. Examples of costs and who covers them are given below:

Ireland – The institution covers the fees.

Slovenia – The public employment service bears registration fees of the unemployed.

Czech Republic – The registration fees varies from EUR 30 to EUR 70.

Norway – EUR 120-300 in the academic field, EUR 300 for the vocational sector and EUR 1,800 for a vocational examination. For tertiary education, all costs are covered by the university budget.

Canada – Generally, assessment fees are borne by institutions; other costs (such as for counselling and information) are divided between institutions and learners.

Belgium – The registration fees are EUR 25 for the unemployed and EUR 100 for the employed. Funding also comes from the European Social Fund (ESF).

The Netherlands – Costs are shared between employers and the funds for education and development or the local authorities.

Switzerland – The canton of Geneva spends an average of EUR 2,200-3,400 per candidate. Swiss Post spent EUR 2.2 million on its entire recognition project for 1,500-2,000 persons.

Austria, Australia, Chile and Denmark are among those countries that offer tax relief in this area, with the result that funding is indirectly based on the state budget. Source: Werquin, 2010b.

25

To promote the use of RPL, governments may grant tax incentives to employers and

individuals. The Netherlands, for example, provides tax benefits to RPL customers

(individuals and employers) for performing RPL (Kippersluis, 2014).

Since funding is a critical issue for sustainability of RPL, the governments should ensure a

policy environment that ensures sustainable and equitable funding for RPL.

Building block 8: Promoting cost-sharing and a sustainable, equitable funding mechanism for RPL.

3.9 Upgrading skills

In view of the skills gap between learning acquired on the job and qualification standards,

most individuals require some form of additional knowledge and skills to pass RPL

assessment and acquire qualifications. For candidates, this means upgrading their existing

skills or acquiring new types of skills, or both, to meet prescribed standards. This presents a

key challenge to RPL candidates, as education and training systems lack sufficient flexibility

to deliver customized programmes to meet their training needs. In addition, the capacity of

education institutions in developing countries is already stretched and generally unable to

admit and provide education to all students seeking admission to formal, full-time

education. Accordingly, they are not very keen to develop and deliver such customized

short-term programmes.

The RPL system should promote

skills upgrading opportunities for

candidates that can be delivered

with flexibility. Bottlenecks in

training infrastructure can be

overcome if training institutes offer

RPL programmes at weekends and

in the evenings, thereby optimizing

the use of the existing

infrastructure, which would reduce

the cost of training. This type of

arrangement would (and does)

help the employed RPL candidates

as well as the training institutes.

For example, India has launched a

massive programme – the Skills

Development Initiative (SDI) –

which comprises short-term

Box 17: Skills gap training: country practices

Experiences in Latin American countries show that RPL goes beyond testing an individual’s current competency. RPL helps with developing their existing skills in order for them to obtain the qualification sought. In Brazil, SENAI’s national training services facilitates the preparation of training plans, while in Colombia, SENA provides complimentary courses to those who were unable to pass the tests due to a skills gap (Vargas, 2004).

The Vocational Educational and Training Authority (VETA) in Tanzania is mandated to organize/facilitate short-term programmes for unsuccessful candidates to undergo skills upgrading, whether in-institution or workplace-based, as well as bridging courses for successful candidates aspiring to acquire further qualifications (VETA, 2014).

Hong Kong has planned a training programme for upgrading the knowledge of RPL candidates in the banking sector. These will be delivered through flexible mechanisms such as distance learning, e-learning, portfolio presentations and case studies (Wai, 2014).

26

training programmes based on this training delivery principle. Between 2007 and 2012 it

has trained more than one million individuals using this specific strategy approach.6

Building block 9: Providing skills upgrading opportunities for RPL candidates.

3.10 Quality assurance

Having a traditional mind set, some education providers and assessment bodies have little

faith in an assessment-only approach for awarding qualifications. Some higher education

institutes are also apprehensive about accepting RPL qualifications as the equivalent of

formal education and training. Yet to be convinced as to the acceptability of RPL, many

students prefer learning in a formal setting, interacting with theirs peers.

European guidelines for the recognition of non-formal and informal learning likewise

observe that there is a high level of trust in formal learning and hostility towards non-

traditional qualifications (CEDEFOP, 2009). Though the word ‘hostility’ may be too strong,

some do consider RPL as inferior to the formal learning pathway. Such bias can be

overcome, to a great extent, by emphasizing the stringent adherence to quality in the RPL

process; creating awareness among stakeholders about its high quality processes ; ensuring

stakeholders’ participation in the RPL process; and collecting and disseminating evidence

about its impact, especially success stories of persons who have benefited from RPL.

Box 18: Quality assurance for RPL in the Netherlands and Tanzania

The Netherlands Tanzania

The Government of the

Netherlands has prescribed a

quality code for RPL providers to

follow. Providers must register

with an evaluating organization,

which audits providers every

three years.

A Knowledge Centre has also been

established to deal with issues

related to quality assurance, and

the development of RPL.

Source: Kippersluis, 2014.

Tanzania has prescribed a comprehensive quality assurance system for RPL, which addresses issues related to:

Policy, legal and regulatory frameworks

Institutional frameworks

The active engagement of employers and workers

Developing competency standards, assessment tools and methodology

Accrediting providers

Training and registering RPL practitioners

Guidance and counselling

Upgrading the skills of RPL candidates

Monitoring and evaluation.

Source: VETA, 2014.

6 www.sdi.gov.in. Accessed 5 January 2015.

27

Quality assurance mechanisms should be comprehensive, covering issues such as using

competency standards for assessment; ensuring the availability of competent RPL

practitioners; collaborating with employers’ and workers’ organizations, and other relevant

stakeholders; developing assessment tools and methodology as references for practitioners;

accrediting RPL centres; moderating assessments; developing monitoring and evaluation

frameworks; conducting independent auditing of the RPL process as a whole; and

disseminating results of evaluation and audit to all stakeholders. In Portugal, for example,

providers have to follow a Quality Charter (Gomes, 2013), the Netherlands has developed a

quality code for providers (Box 18), and Tanzania has prescribed a comprehensive

framework for quality assurance (Box 18).

Building block 10: Ensuring a quality assured RPL system and creating awareness about it.

3.11 Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is important for tracking the implementation, outcomes

and impacts of RPL programmes, and being able to take corrective measures for improving

performance thereafter. Information about RPL outcomes and impacts can also contribute

to enhancing the image of RPL, ensuring the effective participation of all stakeholders and

thus the potential allocation of more resources by governments and employers.

Unfortunately, few countries have systematically collected and analysed such information,

although though there are case studies on individuals who have benefitted. The OECD study

on RPL practices in 22 countries confirms this general lack of quantitative data on the

outcome of RPL, although local databases in assessment centres and enterprises does exist

to some extent (Werquin, 2010b).

An M&E system should produce the following categories of information, disaggregated by

gender, age, qualification type, full or part qualification, an whether the worker was

employed in the informal or formal sector:

Figures on the numbers of candidates who enrolled, dropped-out, appeared in the

assessment and passed the RPL

Candidates’ views about RPL processes such as facilitation and counselling, the

assessment methodology, and the provision and effectiveness of skills gap training

Views of successful candidates about career progression, improvements in

performance, self-esteem, and remunerations and ease of access to further

education, and so on

Employers’ views as to improvements in performance at work

28

Views from higher education institutions about the performance of students

entering through the RPL route compared to those who took the formal pathway

Those stakeholders who are interested or disinterested in RPL and why.

Portugal has designed an administrative management and information system for

monitoring RPL – RVCC, which stands for recognition, validation and certification of

competences – is used by all providers (Gomes, 2013). India has developed an online portal7

to track the progress of a candidate from enrolment to certification and is further improving

the system by adding a module on the status of candidates after certification; each provider

will have to track and enter employment status of candidates on the portal.

Building block 11: Establishing an effective monitoring and evaluation system, and collecting and disseminating information about the impact of RPL.

3.12 Knowledge management and sharing

Since RPL is, in most countries, in the development phase or the early stage of

implementation, each need to learn from the others’ experiences and share effective tools

and practices. There is no need for each country to reinvent the wheel. Management and

sharing requires the building of effective interactive partnerships as well as partnerships

with international development agencies. The focus of collaboration should be on

developing tools, building capacity, benchmarking and sharing those practices that did or

didn’t work. Examples of regional bodies and international organizations that have carried

out studies on country practices on RPL include OECD, CEDEFOP, ILO, and UNESCO. SADC

countries have decided to have regional guidelines on RPL. In South Africa, SAQA organized

a national RPL conference in 2014 to which it invited six countries and the ILO to share

international experiences. SAQA also provided technical support to Seychelles in developing

an RPL policy. However, the knowledge management of RPL should be more structured,

institutionalized and participatory, and go beyond one-off events.

Building block 12: Promoting knowledge management and sharing.

7 Ibid. Accessed 5 January, 2015.

29

4 Conclusion

Due to a lack of appropriate qualifications, a large proportion of people around the world

face severe disadvantage in getting decent jobs, migrating to other regions and accessing

further education, even though they might have the necessary knowledge and skills. The

RPL process can help an individual acquire a formal qualification that matches their

knowledge and skills, thereby improving their employability, mobility, lifelong learning,

social inclusion and self-esteem. RPL has the potential to provide a cost-effective, alternative

learning pathway to formal education and training and to facilitate multi entry–exit between

the education system and the labour market. Therefore, RPL is becoming a highly

aspirational political and social issue, and drawing the attention of policy makers.

International Labour Standards, the conclusions of International Labour Conferences as well

as policy papers from UNESCO, EU and the African Union have also recommended that

countries establish RPL systems.

Given the above, most countries have initiated steps in establishing an RPL system, but often

face challenges when it comes to implementation and scaling up. The key challenges for RPL

include complex, time-consuming methodology, particularly for people working in the

informal sector or with a low level of education; institutions and staff having inadequate

capacity to plan and implement; the mismatch between occupational and qualification

standards; limited awareness of the benefits of RPL; low participation of social partners and

thus its acceptability by employers and higher education institutions; insufficient provision

for upgrading knowledge and skills of RPL candidates to meet accepted standards; and

inadequate funding.

This paper has mentioned some evidence of the benefits of RPL, as well as some good

practices that improve its implementation. However, the idea that ‘one size fits all’ does not

apply – situations and contexts vary from country to country and within a country in

different sectors and qualifications. A guiding principle of RPL in Australia – is: ‘There is no

one RPL model that is suitable for all qualifications and all situations; in particular, different

sectors give rise to different models’ (IARC, n.d.). For RPL to be locally effective, there must

be policy learning and not policy borrowing.

A key question that should be asked before designing and implementing an RPL

programmes is: Why we want to do this? As discussed, RPL can have many purposes so a

clear answer to this basic question is important and will set the objectives, lay a solid

foundation and identify the target groups, stakeholders and partners. Other questions – the

How? Who? Where? and When? – are also important and should be asked when planning an

RPL system. In addition, the following 12 key success factors (KSF) or the building

blocks analysed and recommended in this paper can guide stakeholders in any country

when designing an effective, successful RPL system:

1. Building awareness about RPL and providing effective vocational guidance and

counselling services to RPL candidates.

30

2. Integrating RPL policy with policy, legal and regulatory frameworks for education

and training systems.

3. Ensuring the active participation of all stakeholders, particularly social partners in

the development, implementation and evaluation of RPL.

4. Having an effective institutional framework for RPL.

5. Ensuring the availability of sufficient numbers of competent RPL professionals.

6. Ensuring close matching of occupational standards and qualification standards (the

matching should at least take place at part level, if not that of a full qualification).

7. Developing effective and efficient assessment tools and methodologies appropriate

to the context of target groups.

8. Promoting cost-sharing and a sustainable, equitable funding mechanism for RPL.

9. Providing skills upgrading opportunities to RPL candidates.

10. Ensuring a quality assured RPL system and creating awareness of it.

11. Establishing an effective monitoring and evaluation system, and collecting and

disseminating information about the impact of RPL.

12. Promoting knowledge management and sharing.

31

5 Annex : Characteristics of RPL in Latin America and the

Caribbean

Dimension National initiatives Sectoral initiatives Corporate

initiatives Promoted by Ministry of Labour

Ministry of Education

National Training Institutions

Employers’ associations

National and international sectoral associations

Multinational business corporations

Immediate Objective

Recognition of knowledge and skills

Promoting lifelong learning and progression to higher education

Improving employability

Improving productivity, performance and competitiveness

Human resources management

Connected to performance evaluation

Improving brand image, service and quality

Coverage

National

Pilots at sectoral level before scaling up to national level

Sectoral

Local or national

Global

Financial Resources

Funding from the national budget

Funding from training institutions

Donor funding

Private funds

Sometimes co-financed from public funds

Private funds

Who pays?

Free in the pilot phase

Subsidized for disadvantaged groups

Concerned employers/employees pay a part of the cost

Employers

Employees

In some cases, subsidized using public funds in its pilot phase

Concerned employer

Employees

Accessibility

Open

Not obligatory

Favours the inclusion of workers

Not obligatory

Closer to workers in the sector

Does not include the unemployed

Not obligatory

Proximity to partners and corporative collaborators

Strong points

Public backing

Promotion of education

Lifelong learning

Portability

Sustainability

Use in personnel management

Explicit participation

Global representation

Brand-backing

Weak points

Sustainability

Education–work co-ordination

Token participation

Little portability

Inter-sectoral occupational mobility

Little portability

Source: Vargas, 2004

32

6 References

Aggarwal, A.; Gasskov, V. 2013. Comparative analysis of national skills development policies: A guide for policy makers, (Pretoria, International Labour Office).

Andersen, B.M.; Aagaard, K. 2013. ‘Denmark: The linkage between RVA-NQF and lifelong learning’, in M. Singh; R. Duvekot (eds), 2013, pp. 149-56.

Bayman, J.; Naude, L.; Bolton, H.; forthcoming. ‘Amabele e-RPL initiative within the grain silo industry’, in A. Aggarwal; G. Sethi (eds), forthcoming.

Bowman K.; Clayton, B.; Bateman, A.; Knight, B.; Thomson, P.; Hargreaves, J.; Blom, K.; Enders, M. 2003. Recognition of prior leaning in the vocational education and training sector (Adelaide, NCVER).

Christensen, H. 2013. ‘Norway: Linking validation of prior learning to the formal system’, in M. Singh; R. Duvekot (eds), 2013, pp. 175-83.

Damesin, R.; Fayolle, J.; Fleury, N. 2012. Players, practices and challenges in NFIL and its validation in Europe. Available at www.etuc.org/etuc-project-«informal-and-non-formal-learning-nfil-parallel-practices-systemic-integration. Accessed 27 December 2014.

Dass, H.P. Forthcoming. ‘Bangladesh moving towards recognising skills developed informally’, in A. Aggarwal; G. Sethi (eds), forthcoming.

DGET. 2014. RPL for construction workers. Available at: www.sdi.gov.in. Accessed 22 December 2014.

Duvekot, R. 2013. ‘The Netherlands: Top-down and bottom-up approaches’, in M. Singh; R. Duvekot (eds), 2013, pp. 169-74.

Duvekot, R. et al. (eds). (2007). Managing European diversity in lifelong learning – The many perspectives of the valuation of prior learning in the European workplace. (Nijmegen/Vught/ Amsterdam, HAN University, Foundation EC-VPL and Hogeschool van Amsterdam).

Duvekot, R., Schuur, K., and Paulusse, J. (eds). (2005). The unfinished story of VPL: Valuation and validation of prior learning in Europe’s learning cultures (Utrecht, Foundation ECVPL and Kenniscentrum EVC).

Dyson, C.; Keating, J. 2005. Recognition of prior learning: Policy and practice for skills learned at work, (Geneva, International Labour Office).

European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP). 2009. European guidelines for validating non-formal and informal learning (Thessaloniki).

European Commission. 2013. Recognition of prior non-formal and informal learning in higher education. Available at

www.eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/all_publications_en.php. Accessed 26 December 2014.

Gomes, M.D.C. 2013. ‘Portugal: Formalising non-formal and informal learning’, in M. Singh; R. Duvekot (eds), 2013, pp. 184-95.

IARC, n.d. Available at www.iarcedu.com/news_view.aspx?id=7. Accessed 22 December 2014.

ILO. 2004. Recommendation concerning human resources development: Education, training and lifelong learning (No. 195) (Geneva).

—.2006. ILO multilateral framework on labour migration, (Geneva).

—. 2012. The youth employment crisis: A call for action, International Labour Conference, 101st Session, Geneva, 2012 (Geneva).

—. 2014a. A recurrent discussion on the strategic objective of employment, International Labour Conference, 103rd Session, Geneva, 2014 (Geneva).

—. 2014b. Fair migration: Setting an ILO agenda, International Labour Conference, 103rd Session, Geneva, 2014 (Geneva).

—. 2014c. Facilitating transition from the informal to the formal economy, 103rd Session, Geneva, 2014 (Geneva).

Kippersluis, R.V. 2014. ‘Recognition of prior learning: A snapshot from the Netherlands’, in SAQA: Book of abstracts, National recognition of prior learning conference (Pretoria), pp. 36-7.

33

Marrian, I. 2014. ‘The Wholesale and retail sector education and training authority (W&R SETA) recognition of prior learning (RPL) pilot project case study’, in SAQA: Book of abstracts, National recognition of prior learning conference (Pretoria), pp. 94-5.

Mauritius Qualifications Authority (MQA). 2009. Guidelines for recognition of prior learning (Mauritius).

—. 2014. Report of round table on recognition of prior learning, (Mauritius), unpublished document.

New South Wales Department of Education and Training (NSW DET). 2009. Skills recognition: Guide for registered training organisations (Darlinghurst).

New South Wales Government 2014. RPL. Available at www.training.nsw.gov.au/training_providers/resources/skillsonline/rpl_resources.html. Accessed 26 December 2014.

OECD. 2010a. Recognition of non-formal and informal learning: Outcomes, policies and practices (Paris).

—. 2010b. Recognition of non-formal and informal learning: Pointers for policy development (Paris).

Paulet, M. 2013. ‘France: The Validation of Acquired Experience (VAE)’, in M. Singh; R. Duvekot (eds), 2013, pp. 163-8.

Queensland Government. 2014. RPL. Available at www.training.qld.gov.au/information/ rpl.html. Accessed 22 December 2014.

Ralphs, A. et al. Forthcoming. RPL pedagogy and access to undergraduate programmes in higher education: A case study of existing practices at the University of the Western Cape, (Cape Town, University of the Western Cape).

Singh, M.; Duvekot, R. (eds). 2013. Linking recognition practices and national qualifications frameworks: International benchmarking of experiences and strategies on the recognition, validation and accreditation (RVA) of non-formal and informal learning (Hamburg, UNESCO Institute of Lifelong Learning).

Smith, E. 2014. ‘Recognition of prior learning (RPL) for access: Masters and Doctoral candidates’, in SAQA: Book of abstracts, National recognition of prior learning conference (Pretoria), p. 81.

South African Qualification Authority (SAQA). 2013. National policy for the implementation of the recognition of prior learning (Pretoria).

—. 2014. Book of abstracts, National recognition of prior learning conference (Pretoria).

The World Bank. 2003. Lifelong Learning for Global Knowledge Economy: Challenges for developing countries, (Washington DC).

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). 2012a. UNESCO guidelines for the recognition, validation and accreditation of the outcomes of non-formal and informal learning (Hamburg, UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning).

—. 2012b. Youth and skills: Putting education to work (Paris).

Vargas, F. 2004. Key competencies and lifelong learning, (Montevideo, ILO/Cinterfor).

Velciu, M. 2014. ‘Recognition of prior learning by competencies' validation in selected European countries’, in Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice, 6(1), pp 217-22. Available at

www.search.proquest.com/docview/1550172168?accountid=27578. Accessed 2 January 2015.

Vickers, A. 2014. ‘Recognition of prior learning (RPL): A snapshot from Australia’, in SAQA: Book of abstracts, National recognition of prior learning conference (Pretoria), pp. 31-2.

Vocational Education and Training Authority (VETA). 2014. Guidelines for recognition of prior learning assessment (RPLA) in Tanzania, (Dar-es-Salaam).

Wai, D.Y.K. 2014. ‘Recognition of prior learning (RPL): A snapshot from Hong Kong’, in SAQA: Book of abstracts, National recognition of prior learning conference (Pretoria), pp. 33-4.

Werquin, P. 2008. Recognition of non-formal and informal learning in OECD countries: A very good idea in jeopardy. Available at www.oecd.org. Accessed 12 August 2014.

—. 2010a. Recognising Non-formal and Informal Learning: Outcomes, Policies and Practices, (Paris, OECD).

—. 2010b. Recognition of Non-formal and Informal Learning: Country Practices, (Paris, OECD).